Linux-Advocacy Digest #511, Volume #34 Mon, 14 May 01 16:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (kosh)
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? ("Todd")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (pip)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? ("spicerun")
Re: Win 9x is horrid ("spicerun")
Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know ("Jon Johansan")
Re: IE ("Michael Pye")
Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know (Neil Cerutti)
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Jeffrey L. Cooper)
Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent! ("spicerun")
Re: Win 9x is horrid (Craig Kelley)
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (.)
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (.)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Matan Ziv-Av)
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (.)
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (pip)
Re: Find your sole mate here!! Post your FREE personal ADs here! ("Ben Gerber")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 11:22:10 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pip wrote:
> kosh wrote:
>
>> From what I have seen it was because of some breaking points in the 2.0
>> and 2.2 kernels that were fixed in 2.4. BSD used to have faster TCP/IP
>> performance. Which is more stable right now is unknown since 2.4 has not
>> been tested enough yet.
>
> I would argue that 2.4 *has* been tested quite well. This is why the
> release of 2.4 was delayed for so long. Another factor is that there are
> more Linux users than BSD users, therefore the Linux kernel gets tested
> far more on real systems. So, even if the Linux kernel is not as
> conservative, this tends to balance out with the greater user feedback.
>
Not really the number but for how long it has been tested. Until it has
been out for more then a year it won't really have good uptime numbers to
show of things and there won't be enough long term stability information.
Short term stability stuff gets hammered with testing and that is the
solution that tends to improve the fastest.
>>I have never had a 2.4 system crash and I have
>> about 5 of them around so it seems to work nicely. 2.4 also has better
>> SMP support then current BSD boxes.
>
> I suspect that the vm subsystem is also better. There are many new
> improvements that are being worked on now that should also improve this
> margin.
>
I am not sure if the VM system is better then BSD however it is a hell of a
lot better then any previous version and more fixes are still coming for it.
>>If you need more then 2cpus linux is a
>> better bet on x86 hardware.
>
> Yes, that is one of the main issues that 2.4 addressed.
>
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 00:34:33 +0800
Reply-To: "Todd" <todd<remove>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have gracefully moved from using StarOffice 5.2, and purchase
> Wordperfect Suite 2000 for Linux. I constantly hear the mantra that
> "Until MS Office comes to Linux, it (linux) will never grace the
> harddrives of large corporate desktops". If that is the case, what is
> Wordperfect Suite 2000 missing?
>
> Wordprocessor: Wordperfect 9
> Database: Paradox 9
> Spreadsheet:Quattro Pro 9
> Presentations: Presentations 9
> Calender/Scheduler/Address Book/Memo's: Corel Central 9
> Browser/Email: Netscape 4.76, I have only had it crash once on me, in
> the 2 months I have owned this copy of SuSE Linux 7.1.
>
> So, whats missing? Where is the huge gap between Wordperfect Suite and
> MS Office Pro?
The applications within the suite do not have the same functionality as the
ones in Office. Also, MS Office applications are far more refined, and they
interoperate with each other very nicely thanks to COM.
And if you think Netscape doesn't crash, you just lost your credibility with
those that use IE under W2k... Netscape sucks compared to IE. (I am running
IE 6 prelease - and it hasn't crashed once - not bad for beta software).
I applaud Netscape for the 6.x release for its compliance with the W3C, but
its stability is worse than 4.x.
Applications under Linux have a *long* ways to go before they even begin to
compare to Office 97, much less Office XP which is out right now.
-Todd
> Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 13:53:16 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May
> [...]
> >> > > Provide the REST of the citation.
> >> >
> >> > Why? You can't seem to grasp the relevant portion. I don't think I'll
put
> >> > anymore up for you to misread.
> >>
> >> Gee, does this translate into... "if I put any more up, they will see
> >> parts incriminating Microsoft"?
> >
> >No. It means just what it says. You can't grasp the section that your
> >purporting MS to have broken. No one else including the DOJ has accused
MS
> >of breaking any other section besides IV (E) (1) which is posted above,
> >along with the appeals court remarks.
> >Any more dumb shit questions?
>
> Yea; are you always this stupid? The appeals court made rather clear in
> the MS II decision that they were quite well aware that the consent
> decree was useless toilet paper, legally,
No, they made it clear that it was legally binding, but said that Judge
Jackson erred in his finding that it meant MS canott integrate anything they
like into the OS including IE. That is why his injuction against releasing
Win98 with IE integrated was thrown out, (along with the comical - million
dollar a day fine). When Jackson realized that it was the entire case he
decided that he'd better allow the DOJ to bring in some new charges MID
TRIAL!
Can you say - - Complete illegal sham? I knew you could. Say bye-bye to
Jackson's assinine ruling in about a month. tee hee.
>and they aren't stupid enough
> to miss the fact that both Win95 and Win98 are both matters of bolting
> products together to force consumers to buy monopoly crapware.
<order>
The preliminary injunction was issued without adequate
notice and on an erroneous reading of s IV(E)(i) of the
consent decree. We accordingly reverse and remand. The
reference to the master was in effect the imposition on the
parties of a surrogate judge and either a clear abuse of
discretion or an exercise of wholly non-existent discretion.
We grant mandamus to vacate the reference.
So ordered.
</order>
> I won't be bothering to post citations, don't bother to ask.
I have them all, but thanks anyway.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 19:00:36 +0100
kosh wrote:
>
> pip wrote:
>
> > kosh wrote:
> >
> >> From what I have seen it was because of some breaking points in the 2.0
> >> and 2.2 kernels that were fixed in 2.4. BSD used to have faster TCP/IP
> >> performance. Which is more stable right now is unknown since 2.4 has not
> >> been tested enough yet.
> >
> > I would argue that 2.4 *has* been tested quite well. This is why the
> > release of 2.4 was delayed for so long. Another factor is that there are
> > more Linux users than BSD users, therefore the Linux kernel gets tested
> > far more on real systems. So, even if the Linux kernel is not as
> > conservative, this tends to balance out with the greater user feedback.
> >
> Not really the number but for how long it has been tested. Until it has
> been out for more then a year it won't really have good uptime numbers to
> show of things and there won't be enough long term stability information.
The point is that it was tested well *before* it's release - which is
the reason for the delay.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 01:00:10 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <xwCL6.725$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> Hey Funky boy keep your hair on. What are you implying by 'hosts, not
>> servers'? I presume you are referring to multiple web servers being
>> hosted on a single machine? The fact that Linux/Unix servers are so
>> capable at this is just another embarrassment to Microsoft.
>
> Windows is just as capable, however Windows is used more often in corporate
> environments than ISP environments. ISP's often have hundreds or thousands
> of web sites (hosts) on a single machine.
>
> In any event, you're avoiding the question. What is your proof that there
> are more physical non-Windows servers on the internet than Windows servers?
> Stick to the topic.
Where did I ever mention 'physical non-Windows servers'? You really are a
pratt.
>> So you are denying that no part of IIS6 will be in the kernel. Come on
>> Funky boy put your money where your mouth is.
>
> You are again avoiding the question. Answer it.
I've asked you to deny that no part of IIS6 will be incorporated in
the kernel. With your deep knowledge of Microsoft SW I thought it
would be easy for you to deny. Personally I don't care. IIS is the
worst offending app for security bugs. That is a fact.
--
Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
looking any better.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 19:49:58 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001
> [...]
>>So you are telling us that the programs running under DOS were not
>>to be called Applications, right?
>
> Why don't you just stick to what I actually told you, and stop being a
> shmuck.
>
>>They were "somehow primitive", not really programs, but a lesser,
>>"primitive" form of programs, right, TMax?
>>
>>You spew BS. I vote *you* the most dumbest wintroll in this group.
>>Before I thought it should be Jan Johanson, but he surely deserves
>>just second place. He never managed such stupid stuff
>
> You haven't a clue. I can see that it bothers you, but you haven't the
> balls to admit it. Drop by alt.destroy.microsoft some time; cola is
> just too full of idiotic wintrolls and people like you.
>
Well, it sure bothers me when someone seemingly intelligent is in reality
just that, a wintroll.
You profess to hate MS, yet, for no discernible reason you use their
products. Not even for usenet where really fine linux-products exist you
do use these instead.
You throw *lots* of words around, but when someone actually calls you
on them you act like all assholes and wintrolls do, you start babbling
random noises or get into the metaphysical realm
You told us yourself that you know about nothing at all about
programming, yet you do not stop to "correct" the views of those who
program for a living and actually know what they are talking about.
(Have you already found *who* Roberto Alsina is, TMax? You surely
were with Chad Myers in the same league then (Chads famous
SSH-stuff, were he actually told the developers of SSH where they
did it wrong, knowing absolutely nothing of the subject himself))
All this is for sure the sign of a true troll, and I would give you
therefore one of these Awards.
--
Stop repeating yourself. Try something original - like suicide
------------------------------
From: "spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 13:13:29 -0500
In article <EqDL6.72689$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mmnnoo"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That said, I think mozilla will almost certainly become a good browser.
> Unless it reaches critical mass, though, web designers won't test their
> pages against it, and some pages won't render correctly.
>
Huh? Mozilla is a good browser IMO. I'm using Mozilla-0.9 and I have
seen it render pages that Netscape chokes on or displays incorrectly. In
fact, I haven't seen Mozilla not render any page that MS Internet Exploder
will render.
------------------------------
From: "spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 13:20:39 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Craig Kelley"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I like most Microsoft products. Office is great; Windows NT is much
> better than their previous operating systems --
That's a matter of opinion....and the above isn't mine thankfully.
>
> Microsoft doesn't build computer hardware; if they started to build it
> they'd upset Dell, Compaq, etc.
I thought the Microsoft Mouse and Natural Keyboards were computer hardware
as well.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.retail.category.management,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know
Date: 14 May 2001 13:55:02 -0500
"Neil Cerutti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers posted:
> >"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:9dmgsu$n0l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > In article <3afebc17$0$82825$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Johanson
wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C0DBAB.BDE843E0--
> >> > >
> >> > <SNIP>
> >> >
> >> > Linux is the fastest growing OS on the planet with MS being a distant
> >> > second.
> >>
> >> That *is* surprising.
> >> Linux is small, it *has* where to grow.
> >> MS is huge, it has little where it can grow to, and yet it manage to be
a
> >> seocnd? Impresive.
> >
> >BeOS grew from 5 users to 20. That was a 400% increase. BeOS has
> >a higher growth rate than Linux! BeOS will take over the world!
>
> Ever heard the fable of the rice and the chess board?
Right - it's a FABLE
------------------------------
From: "Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 19:57:20 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Bush Jr. has him beat, hands down.
>
> What was it, "if you teach a child to read, him or her can learn how to
> speak", or some such.
Some people are born to lead! ;)
MP
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Crossposted-To: alt.retail.category.management,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know
Date: 14 May 2001 19:08:25 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jon Johansan posted:
>"Neil Cerutti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ever heard the fable of the rice and the chess board?
>
>Right - it's a FABLE
There are several lead-ins to the tale, but in the end, a poor
beggar defeats a rich land-ownder in a game of chess. The rich
land-owner is so impressed he allows the beggar to ask for
anything in return. The beggar's small request: enough rice to
cover one chess board in the following fashion: one kernel of
rice on the first square, two on the second, four on the third, 8
on the fourth, and so on.
The greedy land-ownder agrees, thinking he is getting off easy
with just a few bags of rice to pay.
However, the land-ownder is astonished and humbled when he learns
from his wise men's calculations that there is not enough rice in
the entire kingdom to fulfil the beggar's request.
I.e., A faster growth rate for Linux will allow it to easily
catch up and surpass Microsoft's market share, not matter how
great Microsoft's lead.
But you can sit around being foolish, like the rich land-ownder, if
you really must.
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*** The museum bought your antique personal computer for $300. ***
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey L. Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 15:07:44 -0400
I agree with you about Office having great apps. I find the
competition to be adequate, but Microsoft is very good at discovering
ease of use features. My only problem with the Office suite is the
activation.
I find that most people do not know how to run a perfect installation
of Windows. You absolutely need utilities to run a Windows box to
make up for it's deficiencies. For example, Drive Image and Partition
magic or the competing products, will enable people to run Windows
without having problems again. Drive Image allows me to take an image
of a PERFECT installation that I can revert to at any time.
Furthermore, I do not use Windows to uninstall prgrams anymore. I
revert to an image as though it never existed.
Recently I installed Service Pack 2 on my win2k machine, and prior to
doing so, I created an image to be safe.
I am not arguing that Windows is a better OS than Linux, but it can be
run with very few problems using 3rd party utilities.
Regards,
Jeff
On Tue, 15 May 2001 00:34:33 +0800, "Todd"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The applications within the suite do not have the same functionality as the
>ones in Office. Also, MS Office applications are far more refined, and they
>interoperate with each other very nicely thanks to COM.
>
>And if you think Netscape doesn't crash, you just lost your credibility with
>those that use IE under W2k... Netscape sucks compared to IE. (I am running
>IE 6 prelease - and it hasn't crashed once - not bad for beta software).
>
>I applaud Netscape for the 6.x release for its compliance with the W3C, but
>its stability is worse than 4.x.
>
>Applications under Linux have a *long* ways to go before they even begin to
>compare to Office 97, much less Office XP which is out right now.
>
>-Todd
>
------------------------------
From: "spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent!
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 13:26:31 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charlie Ebert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Least Talented Wintroll?
>>
>>
> Pete Goodwin. He reminds me of what would happen should the PGA invite
> the professional bowlers out for a golf day.
>
> He just doesn't know how to be a good asshole.
>
>
Schedule him for a hemorhoidery so he can be a truly perfect asshole.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: 14 May 2001 13:20:47 -0600
"spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Craig Kelley"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I like most Microsoft products. Office is great; Windows NT is much
> > better than their previous operating systems --
>
> That's a matter of opinion....and the above isn't mine thankfully.
> >
> > Microsoft doesn't build computer hardware; if they started to build it
> > they'd upset Dell, Compaq, etc.
>
> I thought the Microsoft Mouse and Natural Keyboards were computer hardware
> as well.
Well, I suppose they could become the world's best mouse/keyboard
vendor instead...
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: 14 May 2001 19:24:51 GMT
Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <9dovvb$jru$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Per Claesson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> And you also have for example FreeBSD, which is better than Linux, is
>>> "real" Unix since it is a branch of the original Berkeley Unix. It has
>>> very good Linux emulation and although I did not try it yet, it should
>>> be able to run Linux Oracle. Maybe someone here tried?
>>
>> Actually, FreeBSD is NOT a *real* UNIX, since it is not certified by the
>> open group. It may have legacy, but technically it is a UNIX-like
>> operating system.
> It _was_ real UNIX once upon a time. If it has not changed much, it still
> is real UNIX, certification or not.
No, it isnt. Dont fall into the trap, however, of assuming that just because
something is not certified by the open group that it is not just as good,
if not superior to that which is.
In fact, that is very often the case.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: 14 May 2001 19:26:28 GMT
pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>> FreeBSD handles threading, memory, and process management better, and has
>> just about the best TCP stack there is.
> Really? I know several hundred developers that may disagree with you
> there.
Yes, linux developers. I know them too. Almost none of them have ever
used FreeBSD in any meaningful capacity.
Heres a fun tip:
If you want to run INN on a full feed server with a minimum retention of
3 days (binaries) and a maximum retention of 30 days (text groups), first
try linux.
Then try FreeBSD (latest versions of both of course) and check out your
results. I guarantee that once you figure out that turning off access times
is a good idea, youll stick with FreeBSD.
=====.
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matan Ziv-Av)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 19:27:19 GMT
On Mon, 14 May 2001 09:35:13 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> I don't think CPU cache qualifies for the definition of "copy"
> in the statutes.
>
> From 17 USC 101:
>
> | ''Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in
> | which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed,
> | and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or
> | otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a
> | machine or device. The term ''copies'' includes the material
> | object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first
> | fixed.
>
> Due to the extremely transient nature of data in the cache,
Not more transient than the data in the ram itself.
> and the inability to address it specifically (unlike RAM or a
Depending on the specific implementation of the processor, it might be.
> disk), one cannot "perceive, reproduce or otherwise communicate"
> the program being executed.
If ram content is lost, whatever is in the cache can be copied back to
ram.
> And because the cache is all on-chip,
> it's not identifiable as a separate device, so there can't possibly
> be a copy, unless you want to argue that the data in the CPU's
> registers, if observed and recorded long enough, also constitutes
> a statutory copy.
The cpu is a different chip from the flash chip where the original
is.
There is nothing in the text you quoted that can differentiate between
a cache on the cpu of the flash device, and a cache in ram of the disk.
What about the following caches:
L2 cache on S7 boards (on the motherboard or on a special module)
L2 cache on a P2 processor module (different chip from cpu)?
Ram on a PCI caching disk controller?
Buffer on an ide disk PCB?
All of them are physical devices from which the work _can_ be reproduced.
--
Matan Ziv-Av. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: 14 May 2001 19:28:55 GMT
pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> I have. NVIDIA drivers w/ gforce2 and kernel 2.4-20 with certian 3-D games.
>>
>> Kernel panic, unrecoverable, hard lock.
> And so you use binary proprietary drivers - and this proves what about
> the quality of 2.4 exactly ?
I'm not saying that the 2.4 kernel sucks, you bitchass nutslap. I'm saying
that I can get it to lock consistently. I can also get the FreeBSD kernel
to lock, the BeOS kernel, windows NT 4.0, 2000, 98, ME, XP, and also Solaris
7 and 8, HP/UX and SCO. A lockable kernel doesnt mean its a piece of shit, it
only means that I could get it to do something that you insinuated might not
be possible. :)
>>
>> > 2.4 also has better SMP
>> > support then current BSD boxes. If you need more then 2cpus linux is a
>> > better bet on x86 hardware.
>>
>> This will only be true for about 6 more months. Version 5.0 of FreeBSD has
>> SMP re-built from the ground up, and already seems to be far superior.
> We shall see. Where are the benchmarks ?
In the ports collection. Download 5.0 and see for yourself.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:39:32 +0100
"." wrote:
>
> pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "." wrote:
> >>
> >> I have. NVIDIA drivers w/ gforce2 and kernel 2.4-20 with certian 3-D games.
> >>
> >> Kernel panic, unrecoverable, hard lock.
>
> > And so you use binary proprietary drivers - and this proves what about
> > the quality of 2.4 exactly ?
>
> I'm not saying that the 2.4 kernel sucks, you bitchass nutslap. I'm saying
> that I can get it to lock consistently. I can also get the FreeBSD kernel
> to lock, the BeOS kernel, windows NT 4.0, 2000, 98, ME, XP, and also Solaris
> 7 and 8, HP/UX and SCO. A lockable kernel doesnt mean its a piece of shit, it
> only means that I could get it to do something that you insinuated might not
> be possible. :)
Well this bitchass nutslap (whatever that means) and most others should
know that shit kernel space code _can_ always lock up the kernel. I
never insinuated otherwise. Perhaps your reading skills need improving.
But then again, as a BSD developer maybeyou should concentrate on the
benchmarks as I think you may be misreading them (hint: the largest
number does not always win). Still there you go.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Ben Gerber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Ben Gerber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Find your sole mate here!! Post your FREE personal ADs here!
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 15:37:41 -0400
Sole mate, eh?
That a foot fetish thing?
Ben
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Stop wasting time waiting for love to fall on your lap
>
> I've never heard it described in quite those terms before.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
>
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
